Open Source Concept vs current world model

[KunjeeB]

I work in the financial sector of development and have greatly improved my skills through interacting with the open source development community.
It has been a great mechanism in supplementing my varsity knowledge, but here’s where I have an issue regarding the concept of open source:
Open source does not seem to end with developers sharing knowledge and helping each other, it also promotes free software.

This concept of sharing and providing the world with software solutions and/or the means to achieve one's goals is excellent for the good of all mankind, but fails when you consider that the rest of the world does not operate like this.
To be more precise, we don't have similar concepts for "open source" medical services, "open source" plumbing, "open source" groceries, "open source" gardening, ...
Even though one may present certain professions where the concept might seem similar - like lawyers providing services pro bono - this is not at all on the same scale the IT community seems to be taking its "pro-bono" stance.
ie, There are far fewer pro-bono lawyers or cases that law firms will do pro-bono as there are free software available. Big law firms will do pro-bonos out of a sense of duty (they have to) whereas open source development almost encourages one to give away your software for free passionately.

It is almost as if the IT community has been greatly encouraged to practice "communism" within their fields while the rest of society practices the opposing business model.
In a sense, if this trend was extrapolated to some point in the future, it would almost imply that IT will become a hobby (that ironically runs the rest of the world) while all other professions are deemed as real work.
As said, the concept of sharing and helping each other is great, but it cannot be as one-sided as it currently is, if it is going to work.
All other professions must come to the table as well!


This leads me to a question:
Who really has instigated the concept of the open source community?
For me, it seems naive to dispel of the fact that the corporate environment (who stood the most to gain) was responsible.

Currently at the company I work for, we do most of the development in-house - however we do use some open source solutions for a few non core systems.
Somebody developed this open source solution and didn't really get paid for it properly.
The corporates at my company are very chuffed that there are such nice people out there who would help them get richer for free :)

As mentioned, I work in the financial sector of development, so my skill set isn't one worth flaunting on the open source community, but I do have friends working in the scientific R&D sector of development and their attitudes are: we will share and help with certain things (basic standard concepts), but are reluctant to share skills and concepts that would illustrate exactly how they perform their "magic" in certain cases due to the argument presented above.

Please share your thoughts and views on this - I'm really interested to know how the rest of the community views this.

[helios]

Open source does not seem to end with developers sharing knowledge and helping each other

This is just one philosophical view of open source. Another states that open source leads to safer and less buggy software.

it also promotes free software.

Not really. Sure, the two are almost always together, but it's not correct to say that one promotes the other.

To be more precise, we don't have similar concepts for "open source" medical services, "open source" plumbing, "open source" groceries, "open source" gardening, ...

That's because none of those activities are on the same level of complexity. To understand a finished medical or plumbing solution you just need to be a doctor or a plumber. To understand a program without access to its source code is not enough to be a programmer.
Software also has the properties of being relatively easy to modify after it's been created, and of being easily copied.

Even though one may present certain professions where the concept might seem similar - like lawyers providing services pro bono - this is not at all on the same scale the IT community seems to be taking its "pro-bono" stance.
ie, There are far fewer pro-bono lawyers or cases that law firms will do pro-bono as there are free software available. Big law firms will do pro-bonos out of a sense of duty (they have to) whereas open source development almost encourages one to give away your software for free passionately.

Encouraged by whom?
In any case, the people to take programming as a hobby don't need to be encouraged to share their code for free. The common idea is "since I found this program useful, there's probably other people who may find it useful. I'll share my work so they can solve their problem more quickly than I did." It's this little thing called "altruism".

It is almost as if the IT community has been greatly encouraged to practice "communism" within their fields

*Eyeroll*

Communism is a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of a classless, moneyless, revolutionary and stateless socialist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production.

Well, since programming is essentially a mathematical and logical activity and everyone has access to the necessary tools to do it, I guess you could say that. Again, it's not so much encouraged as an incidental state of affairs due to the nature of information. Making a copy of a compiler is not as hard as producing another factory machine.
I'm pretty sick of seeing the word "communism" applied to economies of abundance.

In a sense, if this trend was extrapolated to some point in the future, it would almost imply that IT will become a hobby (that ironically runs the rest of the world) while all other professions are deemed as real work.

No, actually it doesn't imply that at all. The hobbyist community has made no attempt to incursion into the commercial sector. I've yet to see a single programmer offering to work for a company for free.

Who really has instigated the concept of the open source community?
For me, it seems naive to dispel of the fact that the corporate environment (who stood the most to gain) was responsible.

Okay, but you'd need to explain exactly how this could come about. The (shall we call it) historical canon would seem to imply that open source originated in universities, from scientists wanting to share information and help each other.

I do have friends working in the scientific R&D sector of development and their attitudes are: we will share and help with certain things (basic standard concepts), but are reluctant to share skills and concepts that would illustrate exactly how they perform their "magic"

Of course private researchers will say that. They're bound by their NDAs. Try asking researchers in the public sector.

[sohguanh]

The corporates at my company are very chuffed that there are such nice people out there who would help them get richer for free :)

This is a very interesting topic you have posted and the above say it all. Why do people want to help other people get richer for free? Below is solely my opinion.

It boils down to one thing (at least for me), and that is the desire to better the lives of people, make them more productive, convenient etc with the use of software. It was never my intention to help the big companies but if they can use my software,component as part of their final software that they sell to make profits, indirectly I am helping to reach out to the end users.

Of cuz, we programmers still need to eat and that is why we have a full-time job isn't it? That is not for free, that is real work like any other professions. The only time we do those extra-curricular is for hobby and in some cases the hobby can turn into real business later on in life. And increasingly, we are in a way seeking donations and ads revenue to supplement for our hobby effort. It is in a way a small compensation for the effort we put in.

I look forward to see other developers opinion on this topic.

[KunjeeB]

I am also very passionate about developing software and sharing ideas - as pointed out - my cncern is that I must also eat and have a roof over my head. Helping others by trying to make the world a better place to live in is what we should ALL aim for - not just us developers.

Many people in other professions also enjoy what they do, but will charge you accordingly for their time and effort.

I agree that it is a rewarding feeling to develop something in your spare time and flog it to the open source market where it is greatly used, however - if sufficient amount of such developers start coming about then we may have a situation where the corporates start realizing that 70~80% of the software their company needs is out their for free and so downsize their IT departments accordingly - eventually there are much fewer IT jobs available
so makes it very hard for me and you to eat and have a roof over our heads.

No, actually it doesn't imply that at all. The hobbyist community has made no attempt to incursion into the commercial sector. I've yet to see a single programmer offering to work for a company for free.

Thats not the general programmers intent - but it is going to be a consequence of the trend above.

In any case, the people to take programming as a hobby don't need to be encouraged to share their code for free. The common idea is "since I found this program useful, there's probably other people who may find it useful. I'll share my work so they can solve their problem more quickly than I did." It's this little thing called "altruism".

I like your mindset - I agree with it - however - notice - in many cases when a big enough organisations toes got tramped on by someone or some other organisation their is some form of legal action they can take - basically if someone did something on a similar in medical or automotive sector they'd be shutdown. All mainly due to the "money effect"

It may be very hard to compare apples to apples when talking about IT verses other professions, but if we take something like a psycholgist - (s)he offers their services which isn't a tangible and could also be shared for free at no loss to the professional.

The private researchers I know are not just reluctant to share their skills due to their NDA's - they typically earn well and call the shots in their areas and by way of societies ego dogmatic driven system, will want to keep things that way, ie. They wont find it nice to have thousands of people capable of doing the same things they can only then to minimise their importance within their organisations. In the very same way, any other professional won't find it that nice to know that their skills are common place.

I guess if the society we lived in was different in the way that everything was abundant, free, fair & equal, then these guys would be thrilled to share their secrets with others. Is such a society ever possible?

[helios]

Helping others by trying to make the world a better place to live in is what we should ALL aim for - not just us developers.

Many people in other professions also enjoy what they do, but will charge you accordingly for their time and effort.

Let's take a simple example: the carpenter. Suppose Joe The Carpenter wants to work in his spare time in a really bitching cabin. Once he's done, he'll use the cabin on holidays. Eventually he may let some of his friends use the cabin on their holidays, or he may want to rent it.
Now, the problem with a cabin is that, besides the time and effort it takes to make, it also requires materials and a place to put it. What if Joe could cheaply reproduce his cabin as many times as he liked in a way that could be placed anywhere? Would he stay with his one cabin, or would he give copies to everyone he knows so they can all enjoy his cabin as much as he has?
I argue that the latter, and that it's programming's unique qualities (and origins) that make programmers so eager to share their work. Furthermore, if it wasn't possible to cheaply copy programs, they would be quite less inclined to do so.

if sufficient amount of such developers start coming about then we may have a situation where the corporates start realizing that 70~80% of the software their company needs is out their for free and so downsize their IT departments accordingly - eventually there are much fewer IT jobs available

This assumes that there's a significant overlap between what the hobbyist and commercial sectors develop, which is false.
It also ignores the NIH syndrome, which is a major driving force in many companies.

It may be very hard to compare apples to apples when talking about IT verses other professions, but if we take something like a psycholgist - (s)he offers their services which isn't a tangible and could also be shared for free at no loss to the professional.

Psychologists and health professionals in general charge you for their time, not for what they produce. Thus, giving service without charging would be a net loss.
By contrast, a programmer doesn't need to work more to produce copies of his software.

The private researchers I know are not just reluctant to share their skills due to their NDA's - they typically earn well and call the shots in their areas and by way of societies ego dogmatic driven system, will want to keep things that way

Well, the researchers you know are dicks, IMHO.

[ascii]

Open-Source software = Progress.

Also, this is a massive tl;dr

[sohguanh]

we may have a situation where the corporates start realizing that 70~80% of the software their company needs is out their for free and so downsize their IT departments accordingly - eventually there are much fewer IT jobs available so makes it very hard for me and you to eat and have a roof over our heads.

The above is half-true. While yes Open Source software can do so much, what it cannot do is to replicate the EXACT business functions that are unique to each company. So you see most Open Sources are pretty "generic" in functions, it still need company employed programmers to gel them on with the company business specific function so that the company can use it in it's final form.

That is, there is one more layer of processing to fine tune the Open Source to the exact company needs. This mean programmers will still be needed by companies but maybe the number to be employed need not be so many anymore as some generic features have already been taken care of by the Open Source e.g email,imaging,etc

I guess if the society we lived in was different in the way that everything was abundant, free, fair & equal, then these guys would be thrilled to share their secrets with others. Is such a society ever possible?

I understand what you are trying to say about free, fair & equal but if you have lived long enough on this Earth, you would have known there is never fair-ness in this world. You gain some and you lose some. In your case, majoring in IT with Open Source so prevalent seem to be a down-side to us compared to other professions. But instead of lamenting about it, why not think of other bright side of it. You are doing something that benefit Mankind as a whole. Hopefully that will soothe your bitter-ness.

One must learn to let go sometimes to be able to enjoy happiness in another form. If you can let go of that bitter-ness, you may just come around to appreciate the beauty of happiness in another form. Similarly, only when you feel at peace with your inner-self would you feel great happiness :)

PS Sorry if you feel I am preaching based on some religion teachings but reflect on it sometime and you may just see the "light" of it all.

[KunjeeB]

Let's take a simple example: the carpenter. Suppose Joe The Carpenter wants to work in his spare time in a really bitching cabin. Once he's done, he'll use the cabin on holidays. Eventually he may let some of his friends use the cabin on their holidays, or he may want to rent it.
Now, the problem with a cabin is that, besides the time and effort it takes to make, it also requires materials and a place to put it. What if Joe could cheaply reproduce his cabin as many times as he liked in a way that could be placed anywhere? Would he stay with his one cabin, or would he give copies to everyone he knows so they can all enjoy his cabin as much as he has?
I argue that the latter, and that it's programming's unique qualities (and origins) that make programmers so eager to share their work. Furthermore, if it wasn't possible to cheaply copy programs, they would be quite less inclined to do so.

Ok – now lets take Joe the engineer – say he creates a car that runs on dirt water and decides to build these and sell them (or give them away) for next to nothing. Are the other industries going to be fine with his actions?
I’ve heard of a few inventions that would have greatly helped mankind but they were silently squashed in various ways by those who stood the most to loose (oil industry …)
Take the case when scientist invented a ceramic razor – this type of blade will never get blunt, so there would be no need to buy another razor – this would have been a great invention to bless mankind with, but the loss that the razor blade companies was going to incur would have been far too severe to allow this – so what did they do – not promote the creation of such blades for public consumption.

Psychologists and health professionals in general charge you for their time, not for what they produce. Thus, giving service without charging would be a net loss.
By contrast, a programmer doesn't need to work more to produce copies of his software.

Don’t get me started with the medical industry – they too have been known to squash certain treatments due to them not being lucrative enough for their own pockets. Ever seen the documentary that cannibus might cure cancer – with tons of individuals that have managed to source such products (illegally) and got themselves cured – checkout cannibus oil – many of these individuals even testify that the mdeical industry was reluctant to release there medical reports to them after they were retested and found to be cured. I wonder why not – maybe they were scared that these individuals will make the rest of society aware of such cures and so minimise the official cure (chemotherapy) which cost much more and buggers you up.

If these facts are true (which I believe – you can lookup the people testifying to such facts and verify their stories) then the medical industry hasn’t done good for all mankind when they easily could have at no real loss (like providing a service for which a doctor did not get paid for) – the only loss they will suffer is that people will have access to something far cheeper and superior for certain conditions (like cancer – so bye bye chemo)

Read the book the “Emporer wears no clothes” by Jack Hearer – this book gives enough evidence that cannibus could also be use to supplement our oil based fuels – this would drive down the cost of fuel (for cars) substantially if we were to implement such production of fuel from hemp - In actual fact – the book claims there are about 50000 industrial applications where hemp derivitives can be used – this obviously doesn’t gel well with the rest of the societies that have a personal stake in those industries – why – because it will make their profeshion less lucrative.

Give me a good, valid reason why they haven’t implemented such mechanisms yet – and try giving me a better excuse than – “Do you know cannibus is a drug” – I don’t believe the authorities are threatened by it because it is a drug – they are threatened by it for the exact reasons I outlined above – makes things less lucrative for them.

This assumes that there's a significant overlap between what the hobbyist and commercial sectors develop, which is false.
It also ignores the NIH syndrome, which is a major driving force in many companies.

Why is this false – my reasons are: before open source development, there was almost no free software available (i.t.o. open source). As open started, more and more free good software became available – so why is it illogical to assume that as time progresses there will be even more free good software available.
If you extrapolate such a trend (to infinity as mathematicians would say – ridiculous I know – but I’m using to to emphasize a point) then we can predict that at some point in the future we will sufficient free software to cause the effect I mention above.

If you can agree that more free software is becoming available as time progresses then it should not be impossible to see that the trend will move toward most software required by companies already being developed by the open source market as time progesses.

The NIH syndrome isn’t a major factor when I’ve seen companies outsource core developments when it promised to save them a significant buck.

[KunjeeB]

The above is half-true. While yes Open Source software can do so much, what it cannot do is to replicate the EXACT business functions that are unique to each company. So you see most Open Sources are pretty "generic" in functions, it still need company employed programmers to gel them on with the company business specific function so that the company can use it in it's final form.

Currently no - but as time progresses, the trend to me indicate thate there is more free software available that addresses the needs of bussiness more and more. It may only be a matter of time beforea range of free software becomes available that can cater for a businesse EXACT needs or will be close enough for the business to slightly align itself with software - SAP requires most businesses to align itself with there system.

I understand what you are trying to say about free, fair & equal but if you have lived long enough on this Earth, you would have known there is never fair-ness in this world. You gain some and you lose some. In your case, majoring in IT with Open Source so prevalent seem to be a down-side to us compared to other professions. But instead of lamenting about it, why not think of other bright side of it. You are doing something that benefit Mankind as a whole. Hopefully that will soothe your bitter-ness.

I get your point - I'm just a voice trying to call a card for what it is - I know things aren't going to change overnight, but I'm trying to see if others see the trend I'm seeing. If there is some truth in that other professions are enjoying the fact that IT is giving up their place in the current business market by tring to create free solutions to help all and feel we are being naive in that sense, then I would like them to know that we are fully aware of the situation as it stands.

[KunjeeB]

Well, the researchers you know are dicks, IMHO

Hmmm - then thats also true for all people in other professions - we don't see them freely sharing their skills and concepts - they use it to maintain their current positions.

So that would imply that we are living in a society full of dicks - then why should we developers choose them moral high ground and not be dicks also???

I used to buy the philosphy of "Yoy be the better man" when I was in school - I don't anymore.

[helios]

I’ve heard of a few inventions that would have greatly helped mankind but they were silently squashed in various ways by those who stood the most to loose (oil industry …)

[Cannabis.]

I fail to see how this relates to the subject at hand.

[Medical industry.]

Again, I don't see the connection with OSS.

before open source development, there was almost no free software available

Given that open source in one form or another is at least as old as computer science, I guess you could that's true in the sense that before open source there was no software at all.

As open started, more and more free good software became available – so why is it illogical to assume that as time progresses there will be even more free good software available.
If you extrapolate such a trend (to infinity as mathematicians would say – ridiculous I know – but I’m using to to emphasize a point) then we can predict that at some point in the future we will sufficient free software to cause the effect I mention above.

Your extrapolation is incorrect in that it assumes a linear function when in fact the shape of the function is obscure. The dimensionality of the space is also not clear.

If you can agree that more free software is becoming available as time progresses then it should not be impossible to see that the trend will move toward most software required by companies already being developed by the open source market as time progesses.

Again, incorrect reasoning. A function such that f(x+1)>f(x) can still be bounded. I.e. there exists y such that f(x)<y for all x>x₀.

The NIH syndrome isn’t a major factor when I’ve seen companies outsource core developments when it promised to save them a significant buck.

Outsourcing isn't affected by NIH. The people suffering from NIH don't need to make the software themselves, they just need to feel that the software was made specifically for them.
Besides, outsourcing doesn't eliminate jobs. It just moves them. It's actually (upfront. YGWYPF factor not accounted for) a pretty good deal both for the outsourcer a the outsourcees.

EDIT:

So that would imply that we are living in a society full of dicks - then why should we developers choose them moral high ground and not be dicks also?

Because two wrongs don't make a right.

[sohguanh]

[Cannabis.]
I fail to see how this relates to the subject at hand.

[Medical industry.]
Again, I don't see the connection with OSS.

I think KunjeeB is trying to make an analogy. I posted saying Open Source software is to better the lives of Mankind in a very cheap or almost free form. He is saying for other professions and industries, they do can better the lives of Mankind just like OSS did but due to reasons he outlined above, those wonderful stuff are withheld to protect the monetary interest of the existing market players like razor making companies, oil companies etc.

Currently no - but as time progresses, the trend to me indicate thate there is more free software available that addresses the needs of bussiness more and more. It may only be a matter of time beforea range of free software becomes available that can cater for a businesse EXACT needs or will be close enough for the business to slightly align itself with software - SAP requires most businesses to align itself with there system.

It may or may not happen but will you be around to witness it then? :) Just like there are views of a program that will help transform human thinking or pseudo-code into running programs magically. It is the holy grail solution that will indeed make the profession of programming extinct. Again based on your observation, will you live long enough to witness that day? :)

I get your point - I'm just a voice trying to call a card for what it is - I know things aren't going to change overnight, but I'm trying to see if others see the trend I'm seeing. If there is some truth in that other professions are enjoying the fact that IT is giving up their place in the current business market by trying to create free solutions to help all and feel we are being naive in that sense, then I would like them to know that we are fully aware of the situation as it stands.

I still can sense your bitter-ness as in IT will be "gone" in the long run due to OSS while other industries continue to strive on due to the "unethical" issues practiced is it? This is when I feel each individual faith comes into the picture. As long as you feel you have done your part in contributing to the lives of Mankind, you sleep peacefully every night as your conscience is clear. Contrast this to those razor making, oil companies etc, do those top executives sleep peaceful at night when obviously they know of some great inventions that they suppressed in order to sustain their own huge empire?

In my vocabulary, I believe in retribution/karma or in English what goes around comes around. For all we know, the razor making,oil companies top executives may fall ill to cancer and due to great invention withheld in medical industries, they have to undergo the painful process of chemotherapy. That to me is their destiny calling for their actions/decisions done/made in the past.

[KunjeeB]

I fail to see how this relates to the subject at hand.

I’m relating the mindset of the OSS community to the mindset of the rest. I’m in particular pointing out that the medical industry is in (and was for a long time) a position to improve life for humanity by the introduction of cannibus, but they don’t. The introduction of cannibus will actually drive down the cost of medication and treatment for a wide variety of issues and be far more superior to some of their current treatments.

SO WHY DON”T THEY???

what have they got to loose – the fact that it will drive down the cost of medication and treatment does not sit well with the big pharmaceutical companies.
Now contrast that to the mindset of the OSS community – they saw a chance to help the rest of humanity with their skills and took it, whereas the medical industry refused to take their chance.

But I think sohguanh says it much better than I do.

[KunjeeB]

Your extrapolation is incorrect in that it assumes a linear function when in fact the shape of the function is obscure. The dimensionality of the space is also not clear.

My extrapolation is based on historical data and current trends with current goals of OSS – it doesn’t have to be linear – its just increasing. Sorry – but I don’t understand how you relate the fact that the extrapolation function is obscure to the fact that we are not clear on the dimensionality of space?

Again, incorrect reasoning. A function such that f(x+1)>f(x) can still be bounded. I.e. there exists y such that f(x)<y for all x>x0.

I don’t deny that an upper bound exist – it must in any case with our case having finite number of people and resources – I’m just pointing out the fact that getting close to that upper bound is going to be uncofrtable for job security for a certain amount of developers.

[KunjeeB]

Contrast this to those razor making, oil companies etc, do those top executives sleep peaceful at night when obviously they know of some great inventions that they suppressed in order to sustain their own huge empire?

LOL - some of these guys party all night and sleep in the day :)

[sohguanh]

LOL - some of these guys party all night and sleep in the day :)

Hmmm.... then what I post earlier can happen to them earlier rather than later in the lifespan isn't it?

I repost.
In my vocabulary, I believe in retribution/karma or in English what goes around comes around. For all we know, the razor making,oil companies top executives may fall ill to cancer and due to great invention withheld in medical industries, they have to undergo the painful process of chemotherapy. That to me is their destiny calling for their actions/decisions done/made in the past.

[helios]

I’m in particular pointing out that the medical industry is in (and was for a long time) a position to improve life for humanity by the introduction of cannibus, but they don’t.

They don't? Medical science alone is responsible for the average lifespan being twice as long as 500 years ago.

they saw a chance to help the rest of humanity with their skills and took it

Like I said before, they do this because it doesn't cost them anything extra. If you want to make a valid comparison, try finding a programmer who wants to quit his job so he can work full time on his hobby.

current goals of OSS

Which are...?

it must in any case with our case having finite number of people and resources

??? "People and resources"?

but as time progresses, the trend to me indicate thate there is more free software available that addresses the needs of bussiness more and more. It may only be a matter of time beforea range of free software becomes available that can cater for a businesse EXACT needs or will be close enough for the business to slightly align itself with software - SAP requires most businesses to align itself with there system.

What do resources have to do with this?

In any case, much of your reasoning relies on the assumptions that:
1. An increasing number of hobbyists are willing to work on the same areas as commercial companies (e.g. administrative and accounting software, websites designed to make a profit, etc.).
2. Getting paid to develop or fine-tune OSS is a contradiction.
I haven't seen any evidence supporting either of these. I thus haven't seen any trend in any direction.

[KunjeeB]

They don't? Medical science alone is responsible for the average lifespan being twice as long as 500 years ago.

No they don't when it comes to cannibus - and that can in addition to promoting having a longer life will also make it healthier. Living with cancer when you are over 60 for 10+ years is worse than living without it for another 10 years past 60.

They've implemented many things positive for mankind, BUT NOT when it came to cannibus which would have meant them producing far cheaper and superior medications and treatments which would have ultimatley meant less profit for them.

What do resources have to do with this?

People and resources will relate to how many jobs there are.

[KunjeeB]

In any case, much of your reasoning relies on the assumptions that:
1. An increasing number of hobbyists are willing to work on the same areas as commercial companies (e.g. administrative and accounting software, websites designed to make a profit, etc.).
2. Getting paid to develop or fine-tune OSS is a contradiction.
I haven't seen any evidence supporting either of these. I thus haven't seen any trend in any direction.

People who develop free software tend to want to develop free software that will be usefull. If something alredy exists, then developing another version of it may not be very useful at all, as compared to developing something not really catered for.

Thus you will have developers creating free software that will fit the needs of private business sectors more and more. This has IMHO started creating a trend which I think I've witnessed within our companies corporate structure.

[KunjeeB]

Like I said before, they do this because it doesn't cost them anything extra. If you want to make a valid comparison, try finding a programmer who wants to quit his job so he can work full time on his hobby.

Intorducing cannibus will also not cost the medical industry anything extra - it will actually drive down cost.
There aren't such programmers - but the consequences of the actions of the many + many more in future of OSS supporters will lead to the scenerio of less viable jobs for IT developers.
Contrast this with the medical industry at most times even lobbying against organisation trying to promote cannibus for private medical use and treatments.